Comments - Latest Popular Stories, Instablogs Community

Lewis Waters

Lewis Waters — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Many of us who oppose Obama do so because, behind the glib charismatic speeches, we see no substance. ”Change you can believe in” is a very catchy slogan and highly popular. But specifically, what is that ”change?”

When asked of his supporters the most common answer is to search through his many speeches, seek the answer on the internet, and such. To date, no supporter has been able to specifically say just what changes are in order, should he win.

At this juncture in my life, I cannot in good consicence support him. He has no searchable record to show and little actual experience, being midway through is first term.

Hillary has such a record and it stinks. Her baggage is well known and there for all to see, if they look.

In many ways, Democrats are seeing what we conservatives have said all along about the Clintons.

That leaves us with McCain who hasn’t gained the support of the old GOP conservative base, me included.

Who I will vote for is undecided as of yet, but if it is McCain it will be a vote against the Democrat, not a vote for McCain.

One thing I do fear, should Obama win and not a reason not to support him, is that some nutcase would assassinate him because of his race. Should that happen I fear America would plunge into bloody riots much worse than we saw in the 1960’s.

Should he win, I pray the Secret Service will be on their toes more than any other time in their history so he can complete his one term.

I say one term because I believe all of America will see his inexperience will rival that of Jimmy Carter.

God help us. We really have no good choices this time.

Robert

Robert — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I am sure Barack Obama will not only prevail the presidential primaries of the United States Democratic Party but also advance to enthrone to the White House becoming the forty-fourth President of the United States. He would make history in the presidency of the US â€“ the first non-white ethnic President of the World’s most powerful nation.

Rudolf

Rudolf — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

My friend Lewis,

What substance did John F. Kennedy have when he ran for president? I think this issue of substance is daily becoming a cover for something else.

Did Bush (43)have substance when he was elected? What was it? He governed a state?

What substance is McCain coming in with? An ability to say who is Shiite and who is Sunni?

If executive experience really matter none of the three candidates still standing has it.

Lewis Waters

Lewis Waters — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Rudolf, first of all, let us not confuse substance with qualifications and experience. I’d venture to say relatively few politicians actually have any substance. But, experience and qualifications are different.

As for Kennedy, I wasn’t old enough to vote yet but was old enough to be aware of the election and fully supported him. Back then the substance of politicans were hidden from the public or his numerous liasons with the ladies would have stopped him from winning. Even with that there is still much controversy over ballot box stuffing that gave him the win over Nixon.

As for experience, Kennedy was a combat veteran of World War II and had served for 14 years in Congress before becoming president.

Bush, who never served in a combat area, but did fly the F-102 Fighter with the Texas Air National Guard at the end of the Viet Nam War era, had also served for 6 years as the governor of Texas and had business experience, even failures.

McCain, as you should have realized by now, isn’t my prime choice, but we are stuck with having to choose from one of the three out front, most likely soon two with Hillary either dropping out or being forced out.

Experience wise, though, McCain’s Military Service is well known, having served numerous years as a POW during the Viet Nam War, which isn’t a qualification for office itself. But, as a Military Officer he does have some background in leading.

He was elected to the US Congress in 1982, serving until 1986 when he was elected to the US Senate, where he has been ever since. That amounts to about 24 years in public office at the federal level.

You are correct, though, about executive experience with the three front runners. In lieu of such experience, we must seek what other experience and qualifications they each have. Which itself presents a quandry in that each is fatally flawed in my estimation.

But, as Robert notes, Obama would be the first non-white ethnic President, except that he is bi-racial by birth and upbringing, even though you wouldn’t know that from most of the claims about him.

To date he really hasn’t shown much action in his Senate seat, being too new. In time he might become one of the better and more powerful Senators, but he is only mid way through his first term in the US Senate.

Hence the feeling that many support him due to his race more than his qualifications, since he is the first viable Black candidate to advance as far as he has.

Personally, I feel that basing any decision on his candidacy solely on his race is wrong, be it to support or oppose him.

That being said, after the election occurs, it remains to be seen if the country will ever unite, given that the entire terms of George W. Bush has been nothing but continual attacks and misrepresentations from the Democrat party. With the childish get backs of both major parties, I dread seeing that continue.

Rudolf

Rudolf — Sun, 11 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

”Bush, who never served in a combat area, but did fly the F-102 Fighter with the Texas Air National Guard at the end of the Viet Nam War era, had also served for 6 years as the governor of Texas and had business experience, even failures.” Lewis

Bush flew F-102. Isn’t that more like where he took cover to avoid combat?

He served 6 years as governor of Texas. If Molly Ivin is right, the Governor of Texas is the least challenging governorship post in the country. She often wrote that the lawmakers in that state work for less that a quarter of the year.

”... and even faliures.” Isn’t it more like... more failures than success? Didn’t Bush wreck everything he touched in Texas, and now including the United States military/economy/constitution/judiciary etc

Rjay

Rjay — Sun, 11 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Can’t agree more with Lewis.

On Obama:

“... many support him due to his race more than his qualifications, since he is the first viable Black candidate to advance as far as he has.”

Totally. This is indisputable.

“Personally, I feel that basing any decision on his candidacy solely on his race is wrong, be it to support or oppose him.”

Great argument and agree. Totally.

On Kennedy, Bush and McCain:

All have had tonnes of leadership, political and/or federal experience, much more than Obama has. On that aspect alone, Hillary has far greater experience than Obama because of her status as the First Lady for 8 years that gave her first hand knowledge and exposure to diplomacy and administration. Okay, agreed that both are Senators, but Hillary outguns Obama on experience alone.

Can’t disagree more with Rudolf on his statement,

“If Molly Ivin is right, the Governor of Texas is the least challenging governorship post in the country.”

Nonsense. You believe such crap?

Lewis Waters

Lewis Waters — Sun, 11 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Rudolf, it appears you have fallen prey to the misinformation distributed about Bush since he narrowly won the 2000 election (and yes, he in fact did win it in Florida, confirmed by after the fact recounts conducted by both sides). Expecting you to claim that he lost the popular vote, yes, nationwide he did, but that is the beauty of the Electoral College system set up by the founders, otherwise, the largest populated states would decide leaders, leaving out the smaller states in national elections.

On to your claims.

Yes, Bush had failures, but what successful person doesn’t have a string of failures? Many claim their failures are what they learned from and knowing what it is like to fail drives them more to succeed.

The most ridiculous claim spread about Bush was that he entered the Texas Air National Guard to avoid combat in Viet Nam. Yes, he got in quicker than others, not because of family preference, but because he volunteered for flight training, a dangerous job and one that requires lengthy training. Still, the F-102 wasn’t the easiest plane to fly and it was notorious for in flight problems, causing many to crash and kill the pilot.

A little known fact not reported by the media that seemed to enjoy spreading any rumor they could about the man, unconfirmed or not (think Dan Rather) is that he did ask for Viet Nam duty under the Air Force’s ”Palace Alert” program, but had not accumulated enough hours to qualify. Still, there is the matter of the last few months of his time, which ended as American involvement in the war ended.

If his drinking was getting the better of him, it’s good he didn’t fly. Still, he did quit drinking and got off the stuff, like many others who are held up as examples to others.

A good article from a non-political source that discusses Bush and the F-102, Aerospaceweb.org â€“ F-102 In Viet Nam.

As for the Texas governorship, lawmakers may only work a short time in state legislatures, but governors work every day. As large as Texas is, I would imagine Molly Ivins is sadly mistaken. I can’t think any state would be easy to be governor of.

As for wrecking everything, think about it, please. During the Bush administration we have heard endless reports of doom and gloom, while we enjoyed the lowest unemployment in recent history and the largest gains in the stock market, while at war and after suffering the worst terrorist attack in history. We had record tax receipts in spite of the claim of tax cuts only for the wealthy.

But, that all did change during 2007. While we aren’t in a depression and economists argue back and forth about recession or slow growth, what major change happened during that time?

HINT: It wasn’t Bush.

In my lifetime Bush is without a doubt the most maligned President we have had. Ignored is that he inherited the mess he is blamed for and the previous ones who left it that way are given a pass and many are eager to have them to back.

As for Obama, it is unknown what sort of leader he would be since we have nothing to look back on to see his experience’s or record.

A catchy slogan doesn’t make a good leader.

And, like I keep repeating, McCain isn’t any better. So, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place this election.

Crystal Stevens

Crystal Stevens — Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I am sorry to say that you are like many in our party, very much in denial about how Hillary’s supporters will come home like good Demcorats and support and accept Obama.

We will not.

This denial by the DNC and some Obama supporters overlooks the fact that Hillary supporters are the ones that make up the Democratic base for decades - Latinos, working class, seniors, etc.

And that there has been such disloyalty shown to these voters and also to Hillary by the DNC, we cannot repay them with our support.

The results of this will equal John McCain as our next president. But like many Hillary voters are sad to see her come so close, this will be the fate of Obama’s supporters in the near future.

Had their been more fairness and less beating up of Hillary and her supporters, that would be different. But it is what it is and it won’t be Hillary dividing the party, it will be her supporters.

This goes beyond me. I’ve encountered this sort of response from SO many that I’m afraid you cannot bank on ALL of those people to just fall in line come November.